|
Sprinkler Systems
Uhaul move
Lawn care
Roses and trees
Ford Parts
Chrysler Parts
Lake Powell
New IPod Touch Apps
New IPhone Apps
IPhone Apps
IPad Information
IPad Apps
Android APPS
Android Games APPS
Android Systems
Android Tablets APPS and Beyond
Smartphone Apps
Smartphone Games Apps Repair and Tools
Tablet PC
Car Sharing Car Leasing
Tabler Pc
Fly Fishing
Toyota Cars
Vacation Rentals
Stock market
NYSE
SSE Stock
Freight & Shipping News
Gluten
Lactose
Gout
My Coupon Life
Campgrounds Check
Outdoor
Kitchen Design and Redoo
Bath Remodeling
Palm Springs
Las Vegas Vacation Tipps
Lake Powell Boating
Homes for lease
Electric and green Car Blog
Pearls and diamonds
Whatsapp and forget SMS Blog, What is Whatsapp App
Solar Panel Solar Energie Sun Power Blog
|
Fantasy » alt.fan.pratchett » A Good Esoteric Point
| A Good Esoteric Point [message #214507] |
Fr, 03 Februar 2006 02:48 |
|
"People can be turned into zombies, you know," said the Lecturer in Recent
Runes. "You don't even need magic. Just the liver of a certain rare fish
and the extract of a particular kind of root. One spoonful, and when you
wake up, you're a zombie."
"What type of fish?" said the Senior Wrangler.
"How should I know?"
"How should anyone know, then?" said the Senior Wrangler testily. "Did
someone wake up one morning and say, hey, here's an idea, I'll just turn
someone into a zombie, all I'll need is some rare fish liver and a piece of
root, it's just a matter of finding the right one? You can see the queue
outside the hut, can't you? No. 94, Red Stripefish liver and Maniac root .
.. . didn't work. No. 95, Spikefish liver and Dum-dum root . . . didn't
work. No. 96--"
< _Reaper Man_
--
tinmimus99 [at] hotmail.com
smeeter 11 or maybe 12
mp 10
mhm 29x13
In the beginning, there was nothing, which exploded.
< Pratchett
|
|
|
| Re: A Good Esoteric Point [message #214520 ] |
Fr, 03 Februar 2006 07:19 |
|
On Thu, 2 Feb 2006 20:48:11 -0500, mimus
<tinmimus99 [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"People can be turned into zombies, you know," said the Lecturer in Recent
>Runes. "You don't even need magic. Just the liver of a certain rare fish
>and the extract of a particular kind of root. One spoonful, and when you
>wake up, you're a zombie."
>
>"What type of fish?" said the Senior Wrangler.
>
>"How should I know?"
>
>"How should anyone know, then?" said the Senior Wrangler testily. "Did
>someone wake up one morning and say, hey, here's an idea, I'll just turn
>someone into a zombie, all I'll need is some rare fish liver and a piece of
>root, it's just a matter of finding the right one? You can see the queue
>outside the hut, can't you? No. 94, Red Stripefish liver and Maniac root .
>. . didn't work. No. 95, Spikefish liver and Dum-dum root . . . didn't
>work. No. 96--"
>
>< _Reaper Man_
Funny thing. I was just reading that passage. I remember
thinking; that's not so unlikely at all. Zombie poudres were
supposedly invented on Haiti. The slaves there began
escaping, surviving in the interior. The remaining slaves
started to poison their masters, using native ingredients
discovered by the escapees. That lead to even more cruel,
paranoid and unusual treatment of slaves, which led to more
escapes and poisonings. Eventually there was a really
horrible civil war. Perhaps one or more of the poisoners
got... well, lucky isn't exactly the right word... and later
remembered the ingredients and dosage that would cause coma
and a chemical lobotomy but not death.
Must've been a pretty nasty shock for everyone involved...
....
|
|
|
| Re: A Good Esoteric Point [message #214522 ] |
Fr, 03 Februar 2006 07:39 |
|
mimus wrote:
> "People can be turned into zombies, you know," said the Lecturer in Recent
> Runes. "You don't even need magic. Just the liver of a certain rare fish
> and the extract of a particular kind of root. One spoonful, and when you
> wake up, you're a zombie."
>
> "What type of fish?" said the Senior Wrangler.
>
> "How should I know?"
>
> "How should anyone know, then?" said the Senior Wrangler testily. "Did
> someone wake up one morning and say, hey, here's an idea, I'll just turn
> someone into a zombie, all I'll need is some rare fish liver and a piece of
> root, it's just a matter of finding the right one? You can see the queue
> outside the hut, can't you? No. 94, Red Stripefish liver and Maniac root .
> . . didn't work. No. 95, Spikefish liver and Dum-dum root . . . didn't
> work. No. 96--"
>
> < _Reaper Man_
>
More likely someone woke up one morning and said, "Hmm, I wonder why XXX
is a zombie this morning? Something to do with that stew he made with
that weird fish he caught? I wonder what would happen if we tried it
again ..."
--
Christina
----
The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to
those who think they've found it.
Terry Pratchett - Monstrous Regiment
|
|
|
| Re: A Good Esoteric Point [message #214568 ] |
Fr, 03 Februar 2006 20:53 |
|
"Fwap" <nyrge [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cvs5u1dsl7rnabgme46hv2jbct13vstghq [at] 4ax.com...
> On Thu, 2 Feb 2006 20:48:11 -0500, mimus
> <tinmimus99 [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"People can be turned into zombies, you know," said the Lecturer in Recent
>>Runes. "You don't even need magic. Just the liver of a certain rare fish
>>and the extract of a particular kind of root. One spoonful, and when you
>>wake up, you're a zombie."
>>
>>"What type of fish?" said the Senior Wrangler.
>>
>>"How should I know?"
>>
>>"How should anyone know, then?" said the Senior Wrangler testily. "Did
>>someone wake up one morning and say, hey, here's an idea, I'll just turn
>>someone into a zombie, all I'll need is some rare fish liver and a piece
>>of
>>root, it's just a matter of finding the right one? You can see the queue
>>outside the hut, can't you? No. 94, Red Stripefish liver and Maniac root
>>.
>>. . didn't work. No. 95, Spikefish liver and Dum-dum root . . . didn't
>>work. No. 96--"
>>
>>< _Reaper Man_
>
> Funny thing. I was just reading that passage. I remember
> thinking; that's not so unlikely at all. Zombie poudres were
> supposedly invented on Haiti. The slaves there began
> escaping, surviving in the interior. The remaining slaves
> started to poison their masters, using native ingredients
> discovered by the escapees. That lead to even more cruel,
> paranoid and unusual treatment of slaves, which led to more
> escapes and poisonings. Eventually there was a really
> horrible civil war. Perhaps one or more of the poisoners
> got... well, lucky isn't exactly the right word... and later
> remembered the ingredients and dosage that would cause coma
> and a chemical lobotomy but not death.
>
> Must've been a pretty nasty shock for everyone involved...
>
Zombie: A soulless body who has been revived from death and can be made to
work as a slave.
http://members.aol.com/lshauser/zomboid.html
The Swamp Man
A man is standing next to a tree in the swamp when quite suddenly the tree
is struck by lightning. Much to the man's dismay, he is reduced to his base
elements and is dispersed throughout the swamp. However, completely by
random chance, a most improbable event occurs - the molecules of the now
disintegrated tree reintegrate into the exact molecular structure of the man
who was standing next to it the instant before he was destroyed. What we are
left with now is Swamp Man - an exact duplicate of our original (except for
the obvious fact that he is composed of completely different "stuff"). Would
Swamp Man "be" our original man? Would such a creature have thoughts?
Language? Is he even human?
Some may find thinking seriously about such things to be a waste of time.
Upon first reading of Swamp Man I certainly thought it a needless waste of
energy to argue about such a ridiculous concept - mostly because I thought
the answer was so obvious. However, I have posed the above experiment to
many people as well as read quite a few responses to Davidson's original
paper and have been amazed at the variety of responses I've found. Despite
the improbability of the actual existence of Swamp Man, the idea of his
lumbering form raises serious questions about many current theories of
mental representation, reductionist materialism, and the very nature of what
it means to be human.
The primary goal of this paper is to outline some of the various responses
to Swamp Man and his various incarnations, while defending my own rather
simplistic answer to the questions of Swamp Man's cognitive ability and
identity. It should also be noted that some of the views on Swamp Man are
incredibly complex and some of their more subtle arguments are difficult to
grasp - I have attempted to summarize such arguments to the best of my
ability, but in some cases I may have failed miserably (not being a
philosopher myself).
Certainly the most common reaction I encountered when asking for input on
Swamp Man was this - of course Swamp Man has no thoughts, feelings, or any
other cognitive abilities simply because he lacks the most fundamental
aspect of being human. He has no soul. This is, quite obviously, a strictly
dualist view of cognition and while not everyone uses the word "soul," the
idea is the same. If you hold this view, the remainder of this paper will
not interest you as showing the arguments for and against dualism is not my
purpose. Swamp Man certainly invites such discussion, but I think focusing
on the possible religious significance of Swamp Man would not only be
tedious, but would ignore the more interesting aspects of this thought
experiment (the very reasons Davidson concocted the idea in the first
place). The view of this paper is from a strictly monist perspective and
despite the apparent popularity of dualism for those I've questioned at
parties, in class and other informal occasions, dualism will not be given
any more attention here.
The first questions one must address before even dealing with the
consequences of Swamp Man is this - is Swamp Man even possible? It is
certainly obvious that at the very least, the creation of Swamp Man is
highly improbable; so improbable that probably no circumstance will arise
before the death of the universe that even resembles our Swamp Man
situation. This, however, is not the point - if Swamp Man is even a logical
improbability (as opposed to a logical impossibility), then he deserves
consideration. Despite the rather unique explanation for the impossibility
of Swamp Man given by Millikan (1996) and the even more unique and
convoluted alternate history for Swamp Man given in the same article, there
really is no reason it simply couldn't happen. Millikan's explanation of the
sheer complexity of biological organisms and the improbability of simply
throwing certain molecules together and expecting them to stick certainly
shows that Swamp Man is even more improbable than some may have first
realized; but it does not make it impossible. At a more fundamental level,
the laws of physics would not predict the apparent contradiction to the
second law of thermodynamics shown in Swamp Man - but nor does the law say
that it is completely impossible. The creation of the first replicating
pseudo-organism on our planet was a high improbability (from a certain
perspective), but given enough time almost anything can happen. With enough
time, a cow will literally jump over the moon. There is nothing in current
scientific knowledge that makes the formation of Swamp Man a complete
impossibility.
The next questions one must ask about our fictional example is whether such
an improbable and foreign idea is even worth considering. Obviously (since
I'm writing on the subject) my answer is "yes," but others disagree. The
most notable objection to the consideration of Swamp Man-type thought
experiments was made by the notorious philosopher, Daniel Dennett in a paper
aptly titled "Cow-sharks, Magnets, and Swampman" (1996). He describes, quite
accurately I think, the purpose of such thought experiments as follows.
"These bizarre examples all attempt to prove one 'conceptual' point or
another by deliberately reducing something underappreciated to zero, so that
What Really Counts can shine through. [.] Thus these thought experiments
mimic empirical experiments in their design, attempting to isolate a crucial
interaction between variables by holding other variables constant."
However, he readily rejects such thought experiments as completely
irrelevant, as shown in the next passage.
"It is just as clearly physically impossible for the 'traces' of, say,
Davidson's memories to appear in the structure of Swampman's brain as it is
for a shark to form itself of cells containing cow DNA. Swampman is not
logically impossible, just not worth discussing."
Dennett brings up further examples apart from Swamp Man such as the
above-mentioned Cow-Shark and demon-water (water that turns solid at room
temperature because a demon smiled at it. would such water be called
"ice?"). The problem with Dennett's argument is that his counter-examples
are not only logically improbable (as is Swamp Man), but also logically
impossible. There would be obvious physical differences between a "true"
shark and a shark-like-creature containing only cow DNA (assuming such a
creature would even survive. which it wouldn't). His premise assumes that
the two sharks would be physically indiscernible except for their genetic
structure, which is impossible. His demon-water example is obviously
impossible as there are no demons, but even removing the demon does not
solve the problem as by definition, water is a liquid at room temperature.
Anything that was a solid at said temperature would have to have to be
something else, or our conception of the definition of "water" would have to
be seriously altered. Swamp Man does not fall into the trap of these
examples, as he does not break any currently known laws of physics or
biology. However, Dennett's point is well taken if we assume the important
question in the Swamp Man argument is whether or not Swamp Man should be
counted as "human" - but this is a problem of definitions, not of conceptual
truth. And despite the attention given to such questions in the literature
as to how to best classify Swamp Persons, I find such questions irrelevant.
What, then, are the questions that one should ask about our Swamp Man? Most
will agree that, in our original example, Swamp Man will act just as his
doppleganger would. He would leave the swamp at some point, go home, kiss
his wife and children and go teach his philosophy classes just as Davidson
would have. He would be completely behaviorally indistinguishable from
Davidson, for he is physiologically indistinguishable. This point can
probably be argued, but most will agree with this premise, so that is where
we will start. The question, then, is whether our Swamp Man would be
indistinguishable from Davidson in other ways as well. Ludwig (1996) lists
the four most important questions as (1) Would it have the same thoughts as
Davidson would have (2) Would it speak Davidson's language (3) Would it have
any thoughts at all and (4) Would it speak any language at all. (I altered
Ludwig's phrasing slightly for context). I would add a few more questions
such as (1) What does the Swamp Man experiment mean in context of our
concept of personal identity and (2) What does this experiment mean for
externalist theories of mental representation ('externalist' being any view
that holds that the contents of one's thoughts are partly determined by his
relational properties to other objects).
In 1996 the journal Mind & Language dedicated almost an entire issue to the
problem of Swamp Man in forum format. Responses to the problem raised by
Swamp Man ranged widely across many philosophical domains, though most of
the philosophers seemed to agree on one point - there would be a major
difference between Swamp Man's and Davidson's thoughts, with the
disagreements arising from what exactly the difference would be and to what
extent it would apply. While trying to show that no such differences would
exist we'll look at some of the various arguments for believing that Swamp
Man has no thoughts, or at least, not the same thoughts as Davidson would
have had.
David Papineau defends a form of externalism based on past histories of
natural selection. In his response, titled "Doubtful Intuitions" (1996), he
states that "it follows immediately from our view that a being with no such
past history [history of natural selection] will have no states with
representational contents." He attacks the intuition that Swamp Man would
share Davidson's contentful mental states by attempting to show that this is
not really one's intuition about the matter. Perhaps, he says, we are not
truly thinking of Swamp Man as a randomly created entity but as a designed
one - if not by natural selection then perhaps by some supernatural or
superhuman power. Alternatively, if one truly thought of Swamp Man as the
experiment is designed, the intuition that he is a contentful thinker would
vanish. I'm not really sure how to reply to such an argument. It is
certainly true that imagining Swamp Man is difficult in that it contradicts
our every-day notion of how the world works, but I don't think that it is so
difficult that one need subconsciously appeal to a higher power to do so.
Swamp Man is a randomly assembled collection of molecules with no Darwinian
or other history of design, and that is how I think of him. And I still find
reason to attribute him with contentful thought.
Papineau is certainly right about one thing though - our initial intuitions
about such bizarre circumstances can certainly lead us astray. This brings
up the idea of personal identity, and exactly what it means to be "me." From
a materialist perspective, I can see only two candidates for the job of
making the continuous sense of self that I refer to as "me." The physical
material I am composed of or the pattern that such material forms.
The first of these options is intriguing. What if the actual atoms that I am
made up of is what constitutes being "me." This would solve our Swamp Man
dilemma very cleanly, as Swamp Man and Davidson are made of different
"stuff," so therein lies our difference and the reason that Swamp Man shares
no mental qualities with Davidson. There are numerous problems with this
idea, however. The most obvious being that the material that Davidson was
made up of is spread throughout the swamp. yet we would not say that
whatever mental qualities he possessed are now within the swamp, or even
contained within the individual atoms that once composed him. After all,
these atoms are just carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and the like and despite some
current theorists assertion - atoms do not have mental properties.
An even larger problem with this idea does not require the death of Davidson
(an idea I'm sure Davidson would be quite pleased with) or even the creation
of a duplicate. Everyday we lose atoms from our body from various sources
such as physical contact with other objects, respiration, and excretion. We
gain new atoms from similar sources as well as the daily act of integrating
food into our bodies. In fact, as a very rough estimate, we turn-over our
atomic structure every seven years. This would be somewhat like removing a
brick from a house every day and replacing it with a new one - at what point
would you say you had a new house, if ever? If Davidson was 40 at the time
of his swampy demise, he would still claim to be the same person who
celebrated his 21st birthday 19 years previous - and despite the obvious
fact that the 40 year old Davidson shares little to none of the same atoms
as the 21 year old Davidson, we would all tend to agree with him. This
leaves physical material as a poor indicator of identity, so Swamp Man is
still a contender for sharing the thoughts of Davidson.
What about the pattern that Davidson is composed of? The "blue-print" of
Davidson has been somewhat consistent since his birth, despite the changes
in what material he is composed of. This "blue-print" has also be undergoing
very small modifications over time, much as his physical composition has,
but not in the same way. It is this pattern that is mostly the same between
the Davidson at 21 and at 40 - and it is this pattern that is completely
lost when we disintegrate Davidson (thereby eradicating the "me" that
Davidson once possessed). Many would say that one's identity is contained
within his memories, and such memories are contained within the pattern of
neuronal connections, chemical substances, and other such aspects of
Davidson's nervous system. However, Swamp Man shares all of these patterns
despite being composed of new "stuff." To look at this a different way,
let's modify the experiment a bit.
Imagine now that Swamp Man is created in our swamp, but the original
Davidson is not present for his birth. Instead, Davidson is standing by a
tree in another swamp miles away. We'll really have to suspend disbelief
here (this is the tricky part). also imagine that the two swamps are
identical in all respects. The trees look the same, the vegetation is the
same; even the insects buzz by at the same moment. In a very real sense,
Swamp Man and Davidson are currently sharing the same environment. We've
already concluded that both would act the same - if Davidson felt hot, he
would fan himself the exact same way that Swamp Man would. I see no reason
to believe that they would not be doing it for the same reasons either -
Davidson thought "I'm hot" so he fanned himself, as did Swamp Man. If one
thought about his 21st birthday party (and the hangover the next day), so
would the other. The problem that arises from this comes from this last line
of thought. What birthday party is Swamp Man thinking of? Swamp Man just
came into being a few minutes ago, so how could he possibly have been
thinking of birthday party that he was obviously not at?
This is the intuition that my interpretation of Swamp Man forces one to
reject. If we go the physical constitution route, then one must conclude
that neither Swamp Man nor Davidson were ever at Davidson's 21st birthday
party as none of the atoms that were there are present in either of them. If
we follow the alternative route, asserting that the pattern is what is
Really Matters, then we have to conclude that both of them were at the
party. Intuition tells us that we must pick one of them - but I don't think
it necessary.
Many will find a problem with this, but there are similar possible
contradictions to our intuitions on such matters that make it a bit clearer.
Imagine we operate on a rather unfortunate individual (who I will call
Sara), removing half of her brain and transplanting it into another body.
There are obvious biological contradictions to the possibility of such a
feat, but assuming it possible to make both bodies capable of speech I then
ask you to interview each of them and determine which is Sara. The task
would be impossible. One would have to say that either Sara no longer
existed or that there were now two of her; this is not how we normally think
of identity. A similar problem arises when dealing with split-brain patients
and those suffering from Dissociative Identity Disorder (multiple
personalities) to use an example from real life.
An objection that bears on this idea is that of Kirk Ludwig in his response
"Duplicating Thoughts" (1996). He states quite clearly that whether or not
Swamp Man's thoughts could be identical to Davidson's, there is one class of
thoughts that simply could not be; those in the first-person. Any thoughts
Swamp Man had about himself would, by definition, be about Swamp Man - not
about Davidson. Simply in virtue of being a duplicate, he could not share
all of the thoughts of his doppleganger. The only alternative to this
troubling problem is to remove what I think is a badly misleading term from
the original experiment. According to the argument I've outlined, there is
no Swamp Man - there is Davidson and Davidson. Again - an odd idea to think
that both of their first person thoughts refer to the same person, but this
is a weird situation to start with.
This also raises the problem of what constitutes an experience - the actual
experience itself or the memory of the experience. Usually these two are
intertwined, but it is easy to imagine having one without the other. Amnesia
is an example of the former without the latter, and to the person's sense of
self the experience may as well have never happened. To have the latter
without the former is a bit trickier to imagine, but not impossible. There
are numerous real-life examples (remembering you returned that video when
you didn't, past-life regression, etc.) but those aren't really what I' m
getting at exactly. A more extreme example would be something along the
lines of the Cartesian "Brain in a Vat." To this brain, any experience it
had would be as real as that of a brain in a body experiencing them in "real
life" - only from an outside vantage point can any difference be detected.
In fact, in a very real way we are all brains in a vat - though that is not
directly relevant to the point.
The point is that all that Really Matters is memory - conscious experience
really is on-line memory storage. If one has the memory of being bit by a
spider, he will very likely avoid spiders in the future and have the same
physiological changes in his body when seeing a spider regardless of whether
he was ever "really" was bitten (such thought experiments involving memory
obviously require that the brain physiology be the same regardless of
whether the event actually occurred). There are those that disagree, and
this brings up the other possibility for the basis of identity and thought -
that of our mind's relation to external objects.
This idea, as mentioned before, is known as externalism. Internalism would
be the opposite of this, and is essentially what I have mapped out in the
preceding pages. To begin explaining externalism in detail, we need yet
another fictional creation - a creation I will refer to as Swamp Car. In
Fred Dretske's response to Swamp Man titled "Absent Qualia" (1996) he
outlines yet another thought experiment, this one dealing with his 1981
Toyota Tercel. Lightning (which can obviously do almost anything) strikes a
junkyard, creating from the parts Twin Tercel (aka Swamp Car) which is
identical in almost every way to the Tercel that Dretske has at home. The
identification numbers, license plate, dents - everything is exactly the
same. The only difference is that the gas gauge in Swamp Car does not work.
At least, that's what some would say - in any case, it does not respond to
the amount of gasoline contained within the gas tank as the gauge on the
original Tercel does. According to Dretske, one cannot claim the gas gauge
is malfunctioning as it (nor indeed, any part of Swamp Car) was not designed
to register gas levels in the first place. What Dretske gleams from this is
that Swamp Car is a Toyota Zombie. In the philosophical sense, a zombie is a
being who lacks thoughts and experiences but who is functionally and
physically the same as a minded creature. From an internalist perspective
this is impossible - but from any externalist theory, they are possible.
According to this logic, there can be zombies in the same way there can be
counterfeit money: such money is 'fake' because it does not stand in the
right relation to other objects and does not possess the right history
(Dretske, 1996).
This is a difficult idea to argue against, as one cannot readily say that
relational properties do not matter at all. They certainly do matter, but
only in the right context and from the proper vantage point. One can say,
and I think with proper justification, that Swamp Car's gas gauge is broken.
Why? Because the damn thing doesn't work. It's not doing what it's suppose
to do. Dretske's point is that it isn't "suppose" to do anything, but if you
can apply that to Swamp Car the same must hold for the original car as well.
When I drive either car I impose my own definitions of its function -
without me, neither gas gauge is suppose to do anything. Purpose is a
concept that only minds can attribute to objects. Dretske argues that if I
use a shoe to hold papers on my desk the shoe is not a paper-weight - but I
disagree. Not only is it functioning as a paper-weight, but I also believe
it is functioning as one. To someone who takes counterfeit money as the real
thing, it IS money. Attributing purpose or meaning to an object is
completely relative to the mind attributing it.
An even more clear-cut case of relational properties and their influence on
the mind of Swamp Man comes from Joseph Levine ("SwampJoe: Mind or
Simulation," 1996). Levine makes the audacious step of replacing Swamp Man
with SwampJoe - the obvious duplicate of Joe. It seems odd, according to
Levine, to attribute thoughts about Jay (Joe's brother) to SwampJoe, seeing
as SwampJoe has never had any causal interaction with Jay. This does seem
counter-intuitive, but all of our options so far have forced us to give up
some intuition or another. In a personal communication, Levine explained the
dilemma as follows.
Imagine two boys on two different planets. Each of the boys is physically
identical, as are the planets that they inhabit. However, there exists one
difference between each of these planets - one contains a real Santa Claus
while the other does not (it's good this example sticks to reality). Neither
of our boys has ever seen Santa Claus, but both believe in him. On the
non-Santa planet our boy's thought is false (it doesn't refer to anything)-
while on the pro-Santa planet the boy's thought is true (it does refer to
something). Hence there is a difference between the thoughts of the two,
despite the physiological similarity.
This example is a bit different from our Swamp Man, but I think it shows
more clearly the problem at hand. While it is certainly true that there is a
difference in the validity of the two boy's thoughts, the qualitative
experience of these thoughts would not be different in either case. If we
somehow mixed the two boys up, there would be no physical way to determine
which was which; this is particularly relevant as what we're searching for
is a physicalist theory. This is another case of using a mind to attribute
meaning to an outside object - only from my vantage point can the difference
be seen between the two, and really it's not a difference between the boys
but between their relations to other objects. This is the point of Levine's
argument, but my conclusion is the opposite - there is a relational
difference between the two; it is simply irrelevant when dealing with the
similarity of the cognitive experiences involved.
To jump back to SwampJoe, imagine that SwampJoe was the same as Joe except
for one fact - he believed he also had a brother named Bob. I really don't
know if there is a brother Bob or not (I'll ask Joe next time I see him),
but regardless SwampJoe's thoughts will be same whether they are about an
actual person or simply a fictional character. If I see a shadow and
interpret it as being the shadow of a man about to attack me, both my
cognitive and physical reactions will be the same whether it was truly an
attacker or simply the shadow of a tree.
Why is there this lure to externalistic theories? The attraction in
appealing to outside sources as a source of giving thoughts meaning arises
from an inadequate internalist theory to explain the same phenomenon. While
internalism may not have yet solved the problems that externalism appears to
answer, I find it apparent that despite the explaining power of externalism,
it fails due to the complete incompatibility with common sense. If we
embrace externalism, we suddenly have to admit to the possibility of a
mindless Swamp Man - a virtual zombie despite having an exact duplicate that
is conscious. By conceding this we seem to be balancing on the slippery
slope of dualism - and the last thing any of us want to do is fall on top of
Descartes.
In my heart I feel confident that in some marshy swampland miles away from
here, a gorgeous Swamp Girl has just popped into being and is thinking about
me. And despite opinions to the contrary, I believe that that she is neither
a zombie nor a semi-automaton whose thoughts lack content. And her gas gauge
isn't broken either.
http://home.triad.rr.com/theatre/swampman.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swamp_man
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=swamp+man
> ...
>
|
|
|
| Re: A Good Esoteric Point [message #214630 ] |
Sa, 04 Februar 2006 05:24 |
|
C. Bauer wrote:
> More likely someone woke up one morning and said, "Hmm, I wonder why XXX
> is a zombie this morning? Something to do with that stew he made with
> that weird fish he caught? I wonder what would happen if we tried it
> again ..."
>
Thanks the gods, I had the chicken.
|
|
|
| Re: A Good Esoteric Point [message #214631 ] |
Sa, 04 Februar 2006 06:07 |
|
On Fri, 3 Feb 2006 11:53:58 -0800, "Immortalist"
<Reanimater_2000 [at] yahoo.com> wrote:
>A man is standing next to a tree in the swamp when quite suddenly the tree
>is struck by lightning. Much to the man's dismay, he is reduced to his base
>elements and is dispersed throughout the swamp. However, completely by
>random chance, a most improbable event occurs - the molecules of the now
>disintegrated tree reintegrate into the exact molecular structure of the man
>who was standing next to it the instant before he was destroyed. What we are
>left with now is Swamp Man - an exact duplicate of our original (except for
>the obvious fact that he is composed of completely different "stuff"). Would
>Swamp Man "be" our original man? Would such a creature have thoughts?
>Language? Is he even human?
The problem here lies in the fact that the tools of everyday language we
use to examine and report on the phenomenon are insufficiently sharp.
There are issues of identity, construction, pattern, source, and event
which must be examined separately, but which are combined in the words we
use.
When I say 'me', do I mean the pattern of my mental processing? My
memories? My physical brain structure? My body? The current list of
molecules making up said body and/or brain? And how much variation can any
of these items undergo before 'I' am no longer 'me'?
It's silly. Think of each of these items (and others beside) not as being
a binary state, but as being a (possibly multidimensional) spectrum or
vectorspace. This way, any change can be defined as being 'within epsilon
of me' 'mostly me' 'similar to me', 'not me', and other such appellations.
Even then, the terms are subjective unless they are defined in a standard
able to be applied across all cases, and such personal changes may well be
taken differently by different individuals depending on their self-image.
Example: Would you still consider yourself 'you' if you lost your arms and
legs? Your entire body below the neck? If your brain was put into the body
of a person of a different sex and/or race (being two of the more common
perceived human differences, feel free to think of others)? If your brain
was put into the body of an animal? If you lost all your physical senses?
If you suffered a stroke and lost part of your mental faculties? If you
could no longer remember anything that happened to you?
Are you, in fact, the 'same person' you were ten years ago? Twenty?
Thirty? As a newborn?
What if you passed through a futuristic version of a photocopier and there
were now two of you - and no-one could remember which one was the original
or tell you apart with any form of test? Would you still be you? Would the
other you be you too?
It's not a hard question to answer, it's just a trick one. The answers are
1) "Be" is an insufficiently defined word. The question makes no sense.
2) Yes, he would have thoughts.
3) 'Human' is an insufficently defined and emotionally charged word. Find
another. But physically, emotionally, mentally and spiritually, yes, he
would be as human as anyone else. And probably suffering from molecular
displacement / lightning bolt shock.
-SteveD
--
"Give us a hard one next time."
|
|
|
| Re: A Good Esoteric Point [message #214634 ] |
Sa, 04 Februar 2006 08:48 |
|
Brian Huntley wrote:
> C. Bauer wrote:
>
>>More likely someone woke up one morning and said, "Hmm, I wonder why XXX
>>is a zombie this morning? Something to do with that stew he made with
>>that weird fish he caught? I wonder what would happen if we tried it
>>again ..."
>
> Thanks the gods, I had the chicken.
Ah yes, I remember. I had the lasagne.
|
|
|
| Re: A Good Esoteric Point [message #216767 ] |
Sa, 04 Februar 2006 14:58 |
|
Brian Huntley brian_huntley [at] hotmail.com wrote in
<1139027079.138896.50670 [at] g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
>
> C. Bauer wrote:
> > More likely someone woke up one morning and said, "Hmm, I wonder why XXX
> > is a zombie this morning? Something to do with that stew he made with
> > that weird fish he caught? I wonder what would happen if we tried it
> > again ..."
>
> Thanks the gods, I had the chicken.
>
Papa Legba may beg to differ.
--
eric - afprelationships in headers
www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"live fast, die only if strictly necessary"
|
|
|
| Re: A Good Esoteric Point [message #216792 ] |
Sa, 04 Februar 2006 21:12 |
|
Immortalist wrote:
> http://members.aol.com/lshauser/zomboid.html
>
> The Swamp Man
>
> A man is standing next to a tree in the swamp when quite suddenly the tree
> is struck by lightning. Much to the man's dismay, he is reduced to his base
> elements and is dispersed throughout the swamp. However, completely by
> random chance, a most improbable event occurs - the molecules of the now
> disintegrated tree reintegrate into the exact molecular structure of the man
> who was standing next to it the instant before he was destroyed. What we are
> left with now is Swamp Man - an exact duplicate of our original (except for
> the obvious fact that he is composed of completely different "stuff"). Would
> Swamp Man "be" our original man? Would such a creature have thoughts?
> Language? Is he even human?
>
would his coon dog recognize him?
mk5000
"she looks mad familar? where I know her from. Oh, word! I remember
her!"'--Bobbito's apartment security guard
|
|
|
| Re: A Good Esoteric Point [message #216901 ] |
So, 05 Februar 2006 18:06 |
|
In a speech called ds1m96$9qt$1 [at] heffalump.dur.ac.uk,
Torak uttered thus:
> Brian Huntley wrote:
>> C. Bauer wrote:
>>
>>> More likely someone woke up one morning and said, "Hmm, I wonder
>>> why XXX is a zombie this morning? Something to do with that stew
>>> he made with that weird fish he caught? I wonder what would
>>> happen if we tried it again ..."
>>
>> Thanks the gods, I had the chicken.
>
> Ah yes, I remember. I had the lasagne.
Never attempt to eat microwaved lasagne. It doesn't work very well.
--
http://freespace.virgin.net/b.wakeling/index.html
http://www.livejournal.com/users/sabremeister/
Use b dot wakeling at virgin dot net to reply
"Yan, tan, tethra, huthuthut!"
|
|
|
| Re: A Good Esoteric Point [message #216909 ] |
So, 05 Februar 2006 18:46 |
|
"Brian Wakeling" <bpwakeling [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:44mpljF2vqr3U1 [at] individual.net...
> In a speech called ds1m96$9qt$1 [at] heffalump.dur.ac.uk,
> Torak uttered thus:
>> Brian Huntley wrote:
>>> C. Bauer wrote:
>>>
>>>> More likely someone woke up one morning and said, "Hmm, I wonder
>>>> why XXX is a zombie this morning? Something to do with that stew
>>>> he made with that weird fish he caught? I wonder what would
>>>> happen if we tried it again ..."
>>>
>>> Thanks the gods, I had the chicken.
>>
>> Ah yes, I remember. I had the lasagne.
>
> Never attempt to eat microwaved lasagne. It doesn't work very well.
>
But it is good for hanging posters.
Aggie
|
|
|
| Re: A Good Esoteric Point [message #216920 ] |
So, 05 Februar 2006 19:34 |
|
Aggie aggieangst [at] yourway.com wrote in
<dSqFf.12799$vU2.9449 [at] newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>:
>
> "Brian Wakeling" <bpwakeling [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:44mpljF2vqr3U1 [at] individual.net...
> >
> > Never attempt to eat microwaved lasagne. It doesn't work very well.
>
> But it is good for hanging posters.
>
I've never tried. Usually I just killfile them. However it may be worth
some thought.
--
eric - afprelationships in headers
www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"live fast, die only if strictly necessary"
|
|
|
| Re: A Good Esoteric Point [message #219651 ] |
Di, 07 Februar 2006 22:01 |
|
"marika" <marika5000 [at] gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1139083976.980590.297450 [at] z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> Immortalist wrote:
>
>> http://members.aol.com/lshauser/zomboid.html
>>
>> The Swamp Man
>>
>> A man is standing next to a tree in the swamp when quite suddenly the
>> tree
>> is struck by lightning. Much to the man's dismay, he is reduced to his
>> base
>> elements and is dispersed throughout the swamp. However, completely by
>> random chance, a most improbable event occurs - the molecules of the now
>> disintegrated tree reintegrate into the exact molecular structure of the
>> man
>> who was standing next to it the instant before he was destroyed. What we
>> are
>> left with now is Swamp Man - an exact duplicate of our original (except
>> for
>> the obvious fact that he is composed of completely different "stuff").
>> Would
>> Swamp Man "be" our original man? Would such a creature have thoughts?
>> Language? Is he even human?
>>
>
> would his coon dog recognize him?
>
Yes, necessarily, if he is an exact duplicate at that time then the sweat
the dog smells will be recognized as the same sweat as it would have smelt
before or else there would be a contradiction in that "exact_duplicate"
would not mean exact duplicate?
> mk5000
>
> "she looks mad familar? where I know her from. Oh, word! I remember
> her!"'--Bobbito's apartment security guard
>
|
|
|
| Re: A Good Esoteric Point [message #229807 ] |
So, 26 Februar 2006 11:48 |
|
On Sun, 05 Feb 2006 18:34:29 +0000, Eric Jarvis wrote:
>> > Never attempt to eat microwaved lasagne. It doesn't work very well.
>>
>> But it is good for hanging posters.
>>
>
> I've never tried. Usually I just killfile them. However it may be worth
> some thought.
I love microwaved lasagne, they do a ready-made vegie variety in
Sainsbury's, and even if I knew how to bloody make the stuff, I still
couldn't bear to stand over that horrid oven monster of mine all day -
most of the food I make myself tastes of doggy pooh anyway, so any
ready-made product is bliss to the taste buds.
Hubby prefers to laugh it off by making himself a bacon sandwich!
All the best
Sofie
--
Please visit my deviantART page: http://sofen.deviantart.com/
|
|
|
| Re: A Good Esoteric Point [message #229822 ] |
So, 26 Februar 2006 14:37 |
|
Sofia wrote:
> I love microwaved lasagne, they do a ready-made vegie variety in
> Sainsbury's, and even if I knew how to bloody make the stuff, I still
> couldn't bear to stand over that horrid oven monster of mine all day -
> most of the food I make myself tastes of doggy pooh anyway, so any
> ready-made product is bliss to the taste buds.
Ever watch the show Daria? The only thing the Morgandorfers are ever shown
having for dinner is microwave lasagna. And we all know of Garfield's love
for it.
--
Puck (onstage): I am that merry wanderer of the night!
Peaseblossom (in audience): "I am that merry wanderer of the night",
indeed! "I am that
giggling-dangerous-totally-bloody-psychotic-menace-to-life and limb,
more like." -Neil Gaiman
|
|
|
| Re: A Good Esoteric Point [message #229828 ] |
So, 26 Februar 2006 16:43 |
|
Puck wrote:
>
> Ever watch the show Daria? The only thing the Morgandorfers are ever shown
> having for dinner is microwave lasagna. And we all know of Garfield's love
> for it.
Proper lasagne is not microwaved.
It's reheated in the oven.
--
\\\\ Jens Ayton, Fratello di Vetinari 36.3636363636364% insane
\\\\\__, Bringing sarcastic one-liners to the common hedgehog since 1999
\\\\\`/
|
|
|
| Re: A Good Esoteric Point [message #229840 ] |
So, 26 Februar 2006 20:25 |
|
Puck <Kormos.4 [at] osu.edu> wrote:
>
> Ever watch the show Daria? The only thing the Morgandorfers are ever
> shown having for dinner is microwave lasagna. And we all know of
> Garfield's love for it.
Garfield eat microwaved lasagne? Hardly! IIRC, it's oven heated (I can
recall at least one gag with Odie and the lasagna trading places).
Oh, and proper lasagne don't contain ricotta. That's surely an
abomination unto Nuggan. Lasagne should have balsamella (bechamel with
grated cheese) for the white layers, and I can only ascribe the
substitution of balsamella with ricotta to laziness.
Regards,
--
*Art
|
|
|
| Re: A Good Esoteric Point [message #229853 ] |
So, 26 Februar 2006 22:09 |
|
On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 15:43:45 GMT, Jens Ayton
<RDEGSOVADWUS [at] spammotel.com> wrote:
>Puck wrote:
>>
>> Ever watch the show Daria? The only thing the Morgandorfers are ever shown
>> having for dinner is microwave lasagna. And we all know of Garfield's love
>> for it.
>
> Proper lasagne is not microwaved.
>
> It's reheated in the oven.
After making it from scratch a few times I can tell you it is the best
way to dirty every pot you own.
--
John Duncan Yoyo
------------------------------o)
Brought to you by the Binks for Senate campaign comittee.
Coruscant is far, far away from wesa on Naboo.
|
|
|
| Re: A Good Esoteric Point [message #229867 ] |
Mo, 27 Februar 2006 00:41 |
|
quoting Jens Ayton <RDEGSOVADWUS [at] spammotel.com> :
> Puck wrote:
>>
>> Ever watch the show Daria? The only thing the Morgandorfers are ever shown
>> having for dinner is microwave lasagna. And we all know of Garfield's love
>> for it.
>
> Proper lasagne is not microwaved.
>
> It's reheated in the oven.
Good lasagna (lasagne? is the -a an americanism?) will be eaten until
it's gone, thus, no leftovers to reheat.
--
--Stewart Stremler--------------------------------stremler [at] rohan.sdsu.edu--
Just *what* can you contaminate fecal material with?
-- Paul Tomblin (December 1999)
|
|
|
| Re: A Good Esoteric Point [message #229868 ] |
Mo, 27 Februar 2006 00:54 |
|
On Sunday 26 February 2006 10:48, Sofia wrote:
> I love microwaved lasagne, they do a ready-made vegie variety in
> Sainsbury's, and even if I knew how to bloody make the stuff, I still
> couldn't bear to stand over that horrid oven monster of mine all day -
> most of the food I make myself tastes of doggy pooh anyway, so any
> ready-made product is bliss to the taste buds.
Properly made lasagne is not that difficult and is one of those dishes that
helps you realise you CAN cook after all (Chinese crab & tofu dumplings is
another). Forget the microwaved one and try it for real at least once
otherwise you'll never know if you can or not.
--
Andy Davison
andy [at] oiyou.force9.co.uk
|
|
|
| Re: A Good Esoteric Point [message #229871 ] |
Mo, 27 Februar 2006 01:18 |
|
stremler [at] rohan.sdsu.edu wrote:
> quoting Jens Ayton <RDEGSOVADWUS [at] spammotel.com> :
>> Puck wrote:
>>>
>>> Ever watch the show Daria? The only thing the Morgandorfers are
>>> ever shown having for dinner is microwave lasagna. And we all know
>>> of Garfield's love for it.
>>
>> Proper lasagne is not microwaved.
>>
>> It's reheated in the oven.
>
> Good lasagna (lasagne? is the -a an americanism?) will be eaten until
> it's gone, thus, no leftovers to reheat.
Lasagna is singular, lasagne is plural. If you say you'll have sausages
for dinner, you'd say lasagne -- if you say sausage, you'd say lasagna.
Most Americans will consistently say lasagna even as a plural (and
boloney instead of bologna, and kabob instead of kebab).
Regards,
--
*Art
|
|
|
| Re: [I] A Good Esoteric Point [message #229884 ] |
Mo, 27 Februar 2006 06:19 |
|
Arthur Hagen wrote:
> stremler [at] rohan.sdsu.edu wrote:
> > Good lasagna (lasagne? is the -a an americanism?) will be eaten until
> > it's gone, thus, no leftovers to reheat.
>
> Lasagna is singular, lasagne is plural. If you say you'll have sausages
> for dinner, you'd say lasagne -- if you say sausage, you'd say lasagna.
> Most Americans will consistently say lasagna even as a plural (and
> boloney instead of bologna, and kabob instead of kebab).
Is that so? I've never come across that Americanism before, at least
not in conjunction with the claim that they are the most common
spellings within the US. (I've come across "kebob" on Monkey Island,
but that's all.)
Australians and inhabitants of various other countries *always* spell
it "lasagne", whether singular or plural [1], but pronounce the "e" as
a schwa, so I'd say we *pronounce* it closer to "lasagna". We do not
have any commonly known food which contains the words "boloney" OR
"bologna" in the name. We eat kebabs, and would never call them
"kebobs". We think the spellings "lasagna" and especially "kebob" look
weird in the middle of a text that is otherwise written in English.
Adrian.
[1] What counts as singular or plural when it comes to lasagne, anyway?
It's non-countable, surely.
|
|
|
| Re: A Good Esoteric Point [message #229887 ] |
Mo, 27 Februar 2006 08:14 |
|
"John Duncan Yoyo" <john-duncan-yoyo [at] cox.net> wrote in message
news:076402drmeucr9tj3soug0fjoohj25rtr0 [at] 4ax.com...
> On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 15:43:45 GMT, Jens Ayton
> <RDEGSOVADWUS [at] spammotel.com> wrote:
>
> >Puck wrote:
> >>
> >> Ever watch the show Daria? The only thing the Morgandorfers are ever
shown
> >> having for dinner is microwave lasagna. And we all know of Garfield's
love
> >> for it.
> >
> > Proper lasagne is not microwaved.
> >
> > It's reheated in the oven.
>
> After making it from scratch a few times I can tell you it is the best
> way to dirty every pot you own.
> --
really?? how ever are you making it???
Pot 1: boil noodles
Pot 2: (which has to be a different sort of pot anyway..) brown meat
Casserole pan: layer ingredients for baking
the only other possible thing you might want would be a bowl.. maybe...
otherwise you can scoop the layers in from the packets from teh store...
(I've been forced to use cottage cheese, as that's the way hubby likes it...
*sigh* he's also banned spinach and other "weird veggies" from it... so..
canned tomatoes, cottage cheese, meat and noodles.....
except when i have to do pierogi lasagna, which does take up a few more
pans.. boiling potatoes, mashing them, carmelizing onions, mixing in the
cheeses, adding sour cream and layering all of that between the noodles...
topping with cheese and baking.. is good though.. and much less time
consuming then making "real" pierogis....)
|
|
|
| Re: A Good Esoteric Point [message #229922 ] |
Mo, 27 Februar 2006 17:23 |
|
Davina Stuart wrote:
> "John Duncan Yoyo" <john-duncan-yoyo [at] cox.net> wrote in message
> news:076402drmeucr9tj3soug0fjoohj25rtr0 [at] 4ax.com...
>
>>On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 15:43:45 GMT, Jens Ayton
>><RDEGSOVADWUS [at] spammotel.com> wrote:
>>
snip
>>> Proper lasagne is not microwaved.
>>>
>>> It's reheated in the oven.
>>
>>After making it from scratch a few times I can tell you it is the best
>>way to dirty every pot you own.
>>--
>
> really?? how ever are you making it???
> Pot 1: boil noodles
> Pot 2: (which has to be a different sort of pot anyway..) brown meat
> Casserole pan: layer ingredients for baking
>
Pot 3: Bechamel sauce (a white sauce with cheese and nutmeg)
You also get to dirty your cheese grinder, and a board for chopping
onions and other vegetables.
>
> the only other possible thing you might want would be a bowl.. maybe...
> otherwise you can scoop the layers in from the packets from teh store...
> (I've been forced to use cottage cheese, as that's the way hubby likes it...
> *sigh* he's also banned spinach and other "weird veggies" from it... so..
> canned tomatoes, cottage cheese, meat and noodles.....
> except when i have to do pierogi lasagna, which does take up a few more
> pans.. boiling potatoes, mashing them, carmelizing onions, mixing in the
> cheeses, adding sour cream and layering all of that between the noodles...
> topping with cheese and baking.. is good though.. and much less time
> consuming then making "real" pierogis....)
>
It sounds good.
-Anne
|
|
|
| Re: A Good Esoteric Point [message #229933 ] |
Mo, 27 Februar 2006 18:21 |
|
in article 12059lrbmjkr58c [at] corp.supernews.com, Davina Stuart at
327catpepe [at] mtaonline.net wrote on 26/02/2006 11:14 PM:
>
> "John Duncan Yoyo" <john-duncan-yoyo [at] cox.net> wrote in message
> news:076402drmeucr9tj3soug0fjoohj25rtr0 [at] 4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 15:43:45 GMT, Jens Ayton
>> <RDEGSOVADWUS [at] spammotel.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Puck wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Ever watch the show Daria? The only thing the Morgandorfers are ever
> shown
>>>> having for dinner is microwave lasagna. And we all know of Garfield's
> love
>>>> for it.
>>>
>>> Proper lasagne is not microwaved.
>>>
>>> It's reheated in the oven.
>>
>> After making it from scratch a few times I can tell you it is the best
>> way to dirty every pot you own.
>> --
>
>
> really?? how ever are you making it???
> Pot 1: boil noodles
> Pot 2: (which has to be a different sort of pot anyway..) brown meat
and bacon, and onions and garlic, then add mushrooms, tomatoes, possibly
sweet peppers, herbs, spices and seasoning.
Pot 3: Make béchamel sauce
Pot 4: Boil spinach
Colander: Strain spinach
Grater 1: For cheese
Grater 2: For nutmeg
Assorted spoons, spatulas and knives
> Casserole pan: layer ingredients for baking
>
>
> the only other possible thing you might want would be a bowl.. maybe...
> otherwise you can scoop the layers in from the packets from teh store...
What packets?
--
Lesley Weston.
Brightly_coloured_blob is real, but I don't often check even the few bits
that get through Yahoo's filters. To reach me, use leswes att shaw dott ca,
changing spelling and spacing as required.
|
|
|
| Re: A Good Esoteric Point [message #229953 ] |
Mo, 27 Februar 2006 21:22 |
|
"Anne Nielsen" <abn [at] geus.dk> wrote in message
news:46gnbbFaubmjU1 [at] individual.net...
> Davina Stuart wrote:
> > "John Duncan Yoyo" <john-duncan-yoyo [at] cox.net> wrote in message
> > news:076402drmeucr9tj3soug0fjoohj25rtr0 [at] 4ax.com...
> >
> >>On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 15:43:45 GMT, Jens Ayton
> >><RDEGSOVADWUS [at] spammotel.com> wrote:
> >>
> snip
> >>> Proper lasagne is not microwaved.
> >>>
> >>> It's reheated in the oven.
> >>
> >>After making it from scratch a few times I can tell you it is the best
> >>way to dirty every pot you own.
> >>--
> >
> > really?? how ever are you making it???
> > Pot 1: boil noodles
> > Pot 2: (which has to be a different sort of pot anyway..) brown meat
> > Casserole pan: layer ingredients for baking
> >
> Pot 3: Bechamel sauce (a white sauce with cheese and nutmeg)
>
> You also get to dirty your cheese grinder, and a board for chopping
> onions and other vegetables.
>
I can't stand to chop onions.. and,as mentioned, hubby won't let me put in
other veggies... so I chop onions once every month or 2 and keep them in the
freezer.
and we buy big bags of pre-shredded cheese, as there is a teenage boy in the
house who doens't seem to eat "real" food
> >
> > the only other possible thing you might want would be a bowl.. maybe...
> > otherwise you can scoop the layers in from the packets from teh store...
> > (I've been forced to use cottage cheese, as that's the way hubby likes
it...
> > *sigh* he's also banned spinach and other "weird veggies" from it...
so..
> > canned tomatoes, cottage cheese, meat and noodles.....
> > except when i have to do pierogi lasagna, which does take up a few more
> > pans.. boiling potatoes, mashing them, carmelizing onions, mixing in the
> > cheeses, adding sour cream and layering all of that between the
noodles...
> > topping with cheese and baking.. is good though.. and much less time
> > consuming then making "real" pierogis....)
> >
> It sounds good.
>
> -Anne
|
|
|
| Re: A Good Esoteric Point [message #229954 ] |
Mo, 27 Februar 2006 21:25 |
|
"Lesley Weston" <brightly_coloured_blob [at] yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:C0287578.42CFA%brightly_coloured_blob [at] yahoo.co.uk...
> in article 12059lrbmjkr58c [at] corp.supernews.com, Davina Stuart at
> 327catpepe [at] mtaonline.net wrote on 26/02/2006 11:14 PM:
>
> >
> > "John Duncan Yoyo" <john-duncan-yoyo [at] cox.net> wrote in message
> > news:076402drmeucr9tj3soug0fjoohj25rtr0 [at] 4ax.com...
> >> On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 15:43:45 GMT, Jens Ayton
> >> <RDEGSOVADWUS [at] spammotel.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Puck wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Ever watch the show Daria? The only thing the Morgandorfers are ever
> > shown
> >>>> having for dinner is microwave lasagna. And we all know of Garfield's
> > love
> >>>> for it.
> >>>
> >>> Proper lasagne is not microwaved.
> >>>
> >>> It's reheated in the oven.
> >>
> >> After making it from scratch a few times I can tell you it is the best
> >> way to dirty every pot you own.
> >> --
> >
> >
> > really?? how ever are you making it???
> > Pot 1: boil noodles
> > Pot 2: (which has to be a different sort of pot anyway..) brown meat
> and bacon, and onions and garlic, then add mushrooms, tomatoes, possibly
> sweet peppers, herbs, spices and seasoning.
> Pot 3: Make béchamel sauce
> Pot 4: Boil spinach
> Colander: Strain spinach
> Grater 1: For cheese
> Grater 2: For nutmeg
> Assorted spoons, spatulas and knives
> > Casserole pan: layer ingredients for baking
> >
> >
> > the only other possible thing you might want would be a bowl.. maybe...
> > otherwise you can scoop the layers in from the packets from teh store...
>
> What packets?
>
sour cream, cottage cheese, shredded cheese, canned italian tomatoes..
as said elsewhere.. iv'e a teenager in the house who seems to be allergic to
"real" food.... this sort of "assembled from store stuff" is about as close
as i can get with him... and not eve always then...
|
|
|
| Re: A Good Esoteric Point [message #229974 ] |
Di, 28 Februar 2006 00:06 |
|
On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 23:54:46 +0000, Andy Davison wrote:
> Properly made lasagne is not that difficult and is one of those dishes that
> helps you realise you CAN cook after all (Chinese crab & tofu dumplings is
> another). Forget the microwaved one and try it for real at least once
> otherwise you'll never know if you can or not.
Have You Gone Mad!!! If I made lasagna, then that would most definitly
taste of doggy pooh too!!!
Besides, I can't be bothered to be a slave to my oven all day long either,
which is why I like the Sainsbury's veggie versions. They have both a
soya, and a quorn variety in the store I shop in, which you can stick in
the microwave for about 5 minutes, and voila, they're done!
I can also think of several other things I could be doing rather than
standing around wasting my time on such things as cooking - like reading
my Pratchett novels, playing on my computer, daydreaming about
Rincewind... and play-fighting with hubby of course!!
All the best
Sofie
--
Please visit my deviantART page: http://sofen.deviantart.com/
|
|
|
| Re: A Good Esoteric Point [message #229975 ] |
Di, 28 Februar 2006 00:18 |
|
On Monday 27 February 2006 23:06, Sofia wrote:
> Have You Gone Mad!!! If I made lasagna, then that would most definitly
> taste of doggy pooh too!!!
There's an easy way to stop lasagne tasting of dog pooh. You don't put dog
pooh in it. It really is a very easy dish to prepare and cook at home. Try
steering clear of the dog pooh and using finely chopped beef or lamb (mince
if you want to do a really easy one).
--
Andy Davison
andy [at] oiyou.force9.co.uk
|
|
|
| Re: [I]A Good Esoteric Point [message #230016 ] |
Di, 28 Februar 2006 13:30 |
|
Sofia wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 23:54:46 +0000, Andy Davison wrote:
>
> > Properly made lasagne is not that difficult and is one of those dishes that
> > helps you realise you CAN cook after all (Chinese crab & tofu dumplings is
> > another). Forget the microwaved one and try it for real at least once
> > otherwise you'll never know if you can or not.
>
>
> Have You Gone Mad!!! If I made lasagna, then that would most definitly
> taste of doggy pooh too!!!
>
> Besides, I can't be bothered to be a slave to my oven all day long either,
> which is why I like the Sainsbury's veggie versions. They have both a
> soya, and a quorn variety in the store I shop in, which you can stick in
> the microwave for about 5 minutes, and voila, they're done!
>
> I can also think of several other things I could be doing rather than
> standing around wasting my time on such things as cooking - like reading
> my Pratchett novels, playing on my computer, daydreaming about
> Rincewind... and play-fighting with hubby of course!!
>
If you use something like beanfeast, it's really easy, make up
beanfeast, them make cheese sauce. Layer up with lasagne sheets. Cook.
It tastes really nice and doesn't involve too much work. You can read
whilst it's in the oven.
HTH
Helen
|
|
|
| Re: [I]A Good Esoteric Point [message #230022 ] |
Di, 28 Februar 2006 17:02 |
|
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 04:30:56 -0800, Helen Taylor wrote:
> If you use something like beanfeast, it's really easy, make up
> beanfeast, them make cheese sauce. Layer up with lasagne sheets. Cook.
> It tastes really nice and doesn't involve too much work. You can read
> whilst it's in the oven.
I have to admit, I do love beanfeast - but only in my veggie burgers of
course. Sainsbury's also do several types of veggie burger too -
Beanburgers, Quornburgers, Nutcutlets, Soyaburgers - god I feel guilty,
I'm being spoilt for choice, whilst you meateaters are stuck with
Mcdonald's rubbish!
All the best
Sofie
--
Please visit my deviantART page: http://sofen.deviantart.com/
|
|
|
| Re: [I]A Good Esoteric Point [message #230038 ] |
Di, 28 Februar 2006 19:34 |
|
Sofia wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 04:30:56 -0800, Helen Taylor wrote:
>
>
>>If you use something like beanfeast, it's really easy, make up
>>beanfeast, them make cheese sauce. Layer up with lasagne sheets. Cook.
>>It tastes really nice and doesn't involve too much work. You can read
>>whilst it's in the oven.
>
>
>
> I have to admit, I do love beanfeast - but only in my veggie burgers of
> course. Sainsbury's also do several types of veggie burger too -
> Beanburgers, Quornburgers, Nutcutlets, Soyaburgers - god I feel guilty,
> I'm being spoilt for choice, whilst you meateaters are stuck with
> Mcdonald's rubbish!
>
>
We tend to eat beanfeast that come in packets, just add water and you
have a tasty bolagnaise style sauce. Add mash for shepherds pie, or
pasta or make cheese sauce for lasagne. Yummy and easy to do.
HTH
Helen
|
|
|
| Re: A Good Esoteric Point [message #230045 ] |
Di, 28 Februar 2006 21:37 |
|
Andy Davison <andy [at] oiyou.force9.co.uk> wrote:
> On Monday 27 February 2006 23:06, Sofia wrote:
>
> > Have You Gone Mad!!! If I made lasagna, then that would most definitly
> > taste of doggy pooh too!!!
>
> There's an easy way to stop lasagne tasting of dog pooh. You don't put dog
> pooh in it. It really is a very easy dish to prepare and cook at home. Try
> steering clear of the dog pooh and using finely chopped beef or lamb (mince
> if you want to do a really easy one).
Sofie's vegetarian, I think, from her previous posts so she'd probably
prefer a meatless version.
I rather enjoy cooking myself, as, it seems, do a lot of other afpers,
but it seems clear from her posts that Sofie doesn't, so perhaps it
would be kinder to drop that aspect of the subject?
--
Carol
Some are born weird, some achieve weirdness, and others
feed giraffes to the ceiling.
- Richard Robinson on uk.rec.sheds.
|
|
|
| Re: A Good Esoteric Point [message #230062 ] |
Di, 28 Februar 2006 22:33 |
|
It wasn't a dark and stormy night when Andy Davison wrote:
> On Monday 27 February 2006 23:06, Sofia wrote:
>
> > Have You Gone Mad!!! If I made lasagna, then that would most
> > definitly taste of doggy pooh too!!!
>
> There's an easy way to stop lasagne tasting of dog pooh. You don't put
> dog pooh in it. It really is a very easy dish to prepare and cook at
> home. Try steering clear of the dog pooh and using finely chopped beef
> or lamb (mince if you want to do a really easy one).
My SO can make a decent veggie lasagna while his normal cooking consists
of heating frozen pizza and going to the chippie...
Vashti
|
|
|
| Re: [I]A Good Esoteric Point [message #230064 ] |
Di, 28 Februar 2006 22:57 |
|
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 18:34:17 +0000, Helen Taylor wrote:
>>
> We tend to eat beanfeast that come in packets, just add water and you
> have a tasty bolagnaise style sauce. Add mash for shepherds pie, or
> pasta or make cheese sauce for lasagne. Yummy and easy to do.
I actually really love microwaved lasagna, which is why I eat it, but your
veggie shepherds pie, I could really go for!
As both hubby and I both also love beanfeast products, as we've had them
before in stirfrys with pasta, and we're also both big fans of mash, with
some kind of flavouring and tons of grated cheese mixed in, both these
dishes really sound, as you say, *yummy* and easy to do!
Ever thought of sending them, or any other yummy veggie recipes you have
up your sleeve to the "Recipe Archive"? I'd really love to know some more
easy to make yummy stuff, and the two you gave above really started to
make my mouth begin to water!!!
All the best
Sofie
--
Please visit my deviantART page: http://sofen.deviantart.com/
|
|
|
| Re: A Good Esoteric Point [message #230088 ] |
Mi, 01 März 2006 01:37 |
|
in article 1206o0jtn1i9r2d [at] corp.supernews.com, Davina Stuart at
327catpepe [at] mtaonline.net wrote on 27/02/2006 12:25 PM:
>
> "Lesley Weston" <brightly_coloured_blob [at] yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:C0287578.42CFA%brightly_coloured_blob [at] yahoo.co.uk...
>> in article 12059lrbmjkr58c [at] corp.supernews.com, Davina Stuart at
>> 327catpepe [at] mtaonline.net wrote on 26/02/2006 11:14 PM:
>>
>>>
>>> "John Duncan Yoyo" <john-duncan-yoyo [at] cox.net> wrote in message
>>> news:076402drmeucr9tj3soug0fjoohj25rtr0 [at] 4ax.com...
>>>> On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 15:43:45 GMT, Jens Ayton
>>>> <RDEGSOVADWUS [at] spammotel.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Puck wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ever watch the show Daria? The only thing the Morgandorfers are ever
>>> shown
>>>>>> having for dinner is microwave lasagna. And we all know of Garfield's
>>> love
>>>>>> for it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Proper lasagne is not microwaved.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's reheated in the oven.
>>>>
>>>> After making it from scratch a few times I can tell you it is the best
>>>> way to dirty every pot you own.
>>>> --
>>>
>>>
>>> really?? how ever are you making it???
>>> Pot 1: boil noodles
>>> Pot 2: (which has to be a different sort of pot anyway..) brown meat
>> and bacon, and onions and garlic, then add mushrooms, tomatoes, possibly
>> sweet peppers, herbs, spices and seasoning.
>> Pot 3: Make béchamel sauce
>> Pot 4: Boil spinach
>> Colander: Strain spinach
>> Grater 1: For cheese
>> Grater 2: For nutmeg
>> Assorted spoons, spatulas and knives
>>> Casserole pan: layer ingredients for baking
I forgot the chopping board.
>>>
>>>
>>> the only other possible thing you might want would be a bowl.. maybe...
>>> otherwise you can scoop the layers in from the packets from teh store...
>>
>> What packets?
>>
>
> sour cream, cottage cheese, shredded cheese, canned italian tomatoes..
> as said elsewhere.. iv'e a teenager in the house who seems to be allergic to
> "real" food.... this sort of "assembled from store stuff" is about as close
> as i can get with him... and not eve always then...
That's a shame. Is he present at every meal, or can the rest of you eat
properly from time to time?
--
Lesley Weston.
Brightly_coloured_blob is real, but I don't often check even the few bits
that get through Yahoo's filters. To reach me, use leswes att shaw dott ca,
changing spelling and spacing as required.
|
|
|
| Re: [I]A Good Esoteric Point [message #230120 ] |
Mi, 01 März 2006 13:11 |
|
Sofia wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 18:34:17 +0000, Helen Taylor wrote:
>
> >>
> > We tend to eat beanfeast that come in packets, just add water and you
> > have a tasty bolagnaise style sauce. Add mash for shepherds pie, or
> > pasta or make cheese sauce for lasagne. Yummy and easy to do.
>
>
> I actually really love microwaved lasagna, which is why I eat it, but your
> veggie shepherds pie, I could really go for!
>
> As both hubby and I both also love beanfeast products, as we've had them
> before in stirfrys with pasta, and we're also both big fans of mash, with
> some kind of flavouring and tons of grated cheese mixed in, both these
> dishes really sound, as you say, *yummy* and easy to do!
>
> Ever thought of sending them, or any other yummy veggie recipes you have
> up your sleeve to the "Recipe Archive"? I'd really love to know some more
> easy to make yummy stuff, and the two you gave above really started to
> make my mouth begin to water!!!
>
I'm not quite sure what I could submit to the recipe archive? Do they
need to be unique recipes? Do variations on existing recipes count and
can you submit recipes that you enjoy from recipe books?
Cheers
Helen
|
|
|
| Re: [I]A Good Esoteric Point [message #230135 ] |
Mi, 01 März 2006 15:46 |
|
"Helen Taylor" wrote...
> Sofia wrote:
<snip>
>> Ever thought of sending them, or any other yummy
>> veggie recipes you have up your sleeve to the
>> "Recipe Archive"?
<snip>
> I'm not quite sure what I could submit to the recipe archive?
> Do they need to be unique recipes? Do variations on
> existing recipes count and can you submit recipes that
> you enjoy from recipe books?
>
I'm just an archiver-in-training at this point, but here is
some information directly from the lspace page:
(Argh - the cutting & pasting has included formatting that
I can't figure out how to get rid of - and I need to hustle
off *right now* to work. Think of me, in terms of natural
archiver talent, as on a par with most of the potential witches
that Granny scared off with her hat trick.)
"Submitting a new recipe
To submit a recipe to the archive, and this is something
that will be appreciated by many, you simply send an
email to recipe-submit [at] lspace.org with any subject line
you want. The recipe can be long or short, a snack or
a full meal, a drink (alcoholic or otherwise). Anything goes!
The body of the message should contain the recipe, and for
copyright purposes it should also state a source (no, not sauce!).
So, if it came out of a recipe book, it should state the author,
ISBN, publisher. If it's one of your own concoctions, please
feel free to say so. Please also suggest a category for the
recipe to go in."
April.
|
|
|
| Re: A Good Esoteric Point [message #230167 ] |
Mi, 01 März 2006 21:41 |
|
"Lesley Weston" <brightly_coloured_blob [at] yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:C02A2D31.42DA1%brightly_coloured_blob [at] yahoo.co.uk...
> in article 1206o0jtn1i9r2d [at] corp.supernews.com, Davina Stuart at
> 327catpepe [at] mtaonline.net wrote on 27/02/2006 12:25 PM:
>
< snip lots of bits>
> > sour cream, cottage cheese, shredded cheese, canned italian tomatoes..
> > as said elsewhere.. iv'e a teenager in the house who seems to be
allergic to
> > "real" food.... this sort of "assembled from store stuff" is about as
close
> > as i can get with him... and not eve always then...
>
> That's a shame. Is he present at every meal, or can the rest of you eat
> properly from time to time?
>
> --
> Lesley Weston.
lately he has taken to not bothering to join us, so we've been doing our own
thing more... and right now hubby's off at warrior training with the
national guard, so i'm current'y just cooking for myself for the most part
this month, so i get to do all the really good stuff i like... lots of
veggie burgers and tofu shakes, too.... woohoo
Davina
|
|
|
| Re: A Good Esoteric Point [message #234476 ] |
Fr, 03 März 2006 21:38 |
|
Davina Stuart posted:
....
> Pot 1: boil noodles
....
Why would you boil the noodels? If the sauce is saucy enough, raw noodles will work a
treat, and be more or less al dente instead of over cooked.
--
Ciao
Thomas =:-)
<out of sig error>
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Fr Mai 25 01:05:28 CEST 2012
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,77275 Sekunden |
